By Estella Carpi
In recent history, United Nations (UN) delays in post-crisis aid provision to populations in dire need have often been reported in and criticised by news reports, social media and civil society platforms. Against this historical context, the February 2023 earthquake in Türkiye and Syria marked an important moment for the UN and its international reputation as a primary accountable actor.
‘What is the UN waiting for?’ and ‘where is the UN?’ were the questions that populated the headlines in the Middle Eastern region after the 2023 earthquake. A quick look at the regional history of UN interventions prior to the earthquake shows how such questions were not isolated, but similar criticisms including the UN’s neglect, the withholding of aid, what has been defined as an irresponsible response, and the UN’s delayed support had been raised after conflicts in the region. Against this backdrop, does the UN consider itself a ‘first responder’? The UN’s understanding of ‘first response’ is key to placing grassroots expectations in a broader picture; last year’s earthquake was only a moment on a line of long-standing resentment towards those who have political power in the international community and who can make UN interventions more effective in the region.
So, how is the UN located in the global history of first response? Between 1943 and 1951, after the foundation of the United Nations and the St James’s Palace Declaration, bringing relief to Second World War victims was the priority. However, up until 1971, the primary funding focus was still placed on development aid. During the 1971 secession of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan), there finally came greater UN involvement in emergency aid and, only then, according to historian Florian Hannig, did the UN begin to understand itself as a truly global and permanent ‘first aid’ provider and coordinator.
Read the full analysis here.